Your leading independent provider of legal advice to the Motor Trade.

Blog Post

Used Car Scandal ?

Recent articles in the Sun and other publications have suggested that that “millions” of customers are entitled to a refund on used cars.

This follows an Advertising Standards Agency ruling in October that “vehicles that were ex-fleet (having previously been used for business purposes), including whether the car had been driven by multiple users was material information likely to influence a consumer’s transactional decision” and therefore that because the adverts “had omitted material information regarding the cars having been previously used for business purposes whilst part of a fleet, we concluded that they were misleading.”

The ASA ruling itself doesn’t give rise to a claim for compensation. Its effect is limited to requiring the named advertisers to ensure that future adverts “did not mislead by omitting information that they had to show that their vehicles were previously used for business purposes whilst part of a fleet.”

It has however highlighted the importance of complying with the Consumer Protection Regulations 2008.

The regulations prohibit both Misleading actions and Misleading omissions, which are defined as matters which cause “or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.”

The argument being promoted is that an average consumer would be less inclined to purchase an ex-fleet car due to concerns about increased levels of wear and tear or previous maintenance, and therefore the information should be disclosed.

The OFT Guidance for second hand car dealers published in 2010 made it clear that  this would include “creating a misleading impression about the previous usage of a vehicle. For example, giving the impression that a vehicle has one previous user – through the use of statements such as ‘one previous owner’ – when in fact it is an ex-business use vehicle that has had multiple previous users (such as an ex-rental, driving school vehicle or taxi”). The guidance also makes it clear that it would also be misleading to omit the information. Whilst the guidance has formally lapsed with the closure of the OFT it seems unlikely that the courts will take a different view.

In our view the suggestion that buyers could receive 25-100% of the value of the car in damages is ill founded and misconceived.

27J of the Consumer Protection Regulations provides for a right to damages if the consumer has incurred a financial loss, alarm, distress, physical inconvenience or discomfort as a result of the prohibited practice. However it’s “a right to be paid only damages in respect of loss that was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the prohibited practice” and specifically not “damages in respect of the difference between the market price of a product and the amount payable for it under a contract”.

We’d be interested to see a coherent argument to support a claim that an ex-fleet car had no value whatsoever!

Graham Jones LL.B (Hons.) FIMI
Director of Legal Services

Comments (4)

  1. Jim Reid January 13, 2018 at 6:19 pm Reply

    Well put Graham.
    This is one of the reasons why (talking as Chairman of the IMDA ) we have selected you as our Legal Supprt.
    Jim Reid

  2. Dean Bowkett January 15, 2018 at 12:01 pm Reply

    Hi Graham

    I was the former Group Chief Editor for EurotaxGlass’s (now Autovista), who trade in the UK as Glass’s Guide and now run my own consultancy business focussing on new and used car sales trends, valuations, vehicle provenance and more. With 27 years industry experience I have yet to see any research which substantiates the ASA or OFT’s assertion that because a vehicle was an ex-fleet vehicle or even that it had been driven by multiple users this made it worth less.

    The research I have done actually demonstrates the contrary for a raft of reasons, some due to a duty of care, others due to users fear of additional fees and charges. The OFT’s checklist and the recent ASA ruling seem to be based on an unsubstantiated mindset of the 1980s whereas actual evidence from surveys, research, insurance claims history, servicing records, used car valuations and valuation processes et al.

  3. Robert Macgregor January 27, 2018 at 9:10 pm Reply

    Would like to get involved in this discussion l have had 40 years experience at the sharp end
    Motor trade

  4. Used Car Dealers In Sharjah October 2, 2019 at 12:44 pm Reply

    Hello there Graham

    I was the previous Gathering Boss Editorial manager for EurotaxGlass’ (presently Autovista), who exchange the UK as Glass’ Guide and now maintain my own consultancy business focussing on new and utilized vehicle deals patterns, valuations, vehicle provenance and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. With 27 years industry experience I still can’t seem to perceive any examination which substantiates the ASA or OFT’s affirmation that in light of the fact that a vehicle was an ex-armada vehicle or even that it had been driven by various clients this made it worth less.

    The examination I have done really exhibits the opposite for a heap of reasons, some because of an obligation of consideration, others because of clients dread of extra expenses and charges. The OFT’s agenda and the ongoing ASA decision appear to be founded on an unverified mentality of the 1980s though genuine proof from reviews, examine, protection claims history, adjusting records, utilized vehicle valuations and valuation forms et al.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *